Arbitration panel says software company changed dates in UDRP.
Stock trading software company Wave59 has been found guilty of attempted reverse domain name hijacking by a National Arbitration Forum panelist over the domain name W59.com.
Wave59 originally said that it started using the abbreviated W59 mark in 2009. It has a design trademark that includes W59 in it.
After the owner of the domain name pointed out that he registered the domain nearly six years before the complainant used W59 as a mark in commerce, the respondent changed its story, according to the panelist. In an additional submission, Wave59 said that it had actually used the mark since at least March 2004 — conveniently months before the domain name was registered by the respondent.
In finding Wave59 technologies guilty of attempted reverse domain name hijacking, panelist David E. Sorkin wrote:
Complainant knew or should have known, based upon the facts known to it when it filed the Complaint in this proceeding, that it could not prove bad faith registration. Upon being called out for the obvious chronological deficiency in its case by the Response, Complainant attempted to change the facts, contradicting the evidence it had previously submitted. The Panel considers these circumstances sufficient to support a finding that the Complaint was brought in bad faith, in an attempt at reverse domain name hijacking.
DotCom says
My jaw is on the floor. Andy: What penalties can be enforced??
Andrew Allemann says
@ DotCom – absolutely nothing
Marg says
The W59.com page goes to a For Sale page showing a Buy It Now price of $9,900. This sounds a bargain at that price. Surely it would have been cheaper for Wave59 to have just bought the domain rather than go the legal route they did?
Yep says
@Marg
In hindsight you are correct. As it turns out it would have been cheaper to buy the name however had they won the udrp the name would have been cheaper than the asking price. Given the lack of any deterrent to engage in rdnh why not take a free shot? In the end all that happens is they are forced to pay retail instead of the sale price
Andrew Allemann says
“In the end all that happens is they are forced to pay retail instead of the sale price”
A lot of times the retail price goes up after someone takes the UDRP approach.
v3 says
W59 shows a minimum bid of only 1800.00, yet a company is willing to spend $5000+ in legal fees to take it? I fail to see the logic in that other than the attempted strong-arming of a small business by a larger one.